| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/4 |
| 2006/9/2-7 [Reference/Military] UID:44249 Activity:moderate |
9/2 Only 44 years left to cut global green house emissions in half to
avoid global warming effects.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20332352-601,00.html
\_ "The Government keeps throwing up the costs of action but totally
ignores the costs of inaction." This also applies to our govt's
attitude.
\_ I believe in Global Warming like I believe gun control works.
\_ In countries were firearms are illegal, there are few gun
deaths so obviously gun control doesn't work.
\_ Yup. The following stats deminstrates exactly how gun control
\_ demonstrates
doesn't work:
"In the UK there are about, 100 firearms deaths a year in
the recorded crime statistics, about double that number in
Canada and, under 50 in Japan. The figure in the United
States is more than 10,000. Even adjusting for population,
this is a huge difference."
http://www.polfed.org/0703firearms-and-police.pdf
Population for each country (2003 figures), and firearms
deaths a year per million people:
UK: 60,441,457 1.7
Canada: 32,805,041 6.1
Japan: 127,417,244 < 0.4
US: 295,734,134 >33.8
\_ Now post Switzerland, where gun ownership is common.
\_ For kicks I looked up the breakdown of firearms deaths in
the US. When you pull out the suicides and the gang
killings the rate drops to about 24 with more than 2/3rds
of the remaining listed as "unknown". So the death rate
for normal citizens in the US is anywhere between 8 and
24 on this scale which is still higher than other countries
in the West but our country is much safer in other ways and
you still have the right to defend yourself and others
here unlike in the UK, for example.
\_ I hope there's a riot in your neighborhood and you
find yourself needing a gun. Trusting the same government
that you want out of your bedroom with your gun rights.
Why don't we ban cars, since they "kill" more people
than guns. I'm glad there are bean counters like you
who have so much faith in police (who your cohorts
in the 4th estate often villify and crucify). There
are so many people who saved by guns every year, but
no one keeps track of those. Go ahead, be a victim.
\_ I consider myself to be a liberal. To me that means
the government needs to stay the fuck out of both
the bedroom and the gun locker. To agree with one
of these and not the other is not a liberal position;
I just wanted to point that out. -!pp
\_ Checked out the other crime stats? So you're less
likely to get shot (which was already a small chance)
and a lot more likely to get robbed, raped, beat up,
mugged, burgled(sp?) and just about every other thing.
It would be interesting to see the same stats for the
US with gang-on-gang drug related shootings removed.
\_ I don't know about other countries, but when I was in
Japan, women felt comfortable walking around alone late
night in most parts of the country except maybe in the
Sinjuku area. It's also common for druken men to fall
asleep on sidewalks, and wake up the next morning with
their suitcases intact. People left their Lexus outside
convenient stores with the engine running. And so on.
their briefcases intact. People left their Lexus
outside convenient stores with the engine running. And
so on.
\_ Try that in Europe.
\_ UK or another Eurpoean country?
\_ I was thinking UK in particular since they're
so well known for their anti-gun laws and the
most similar of all these countries to the US.
\_ I don't know about other countries, but women in Japan
feel comfortable walking around alone late night in most
parts of the country, except maybe in the Sinjuku area.
\_ Is it worse in Europe than in the US?
\_ Good comparison. The U.K's violent crime
rate is lower than the U.S.'s. -tom
\_ That wasn't the question. What has
happened to the crime rate in the UK over
time as they have enacted laws to
eliminate gun ownership? The answer, as
you know, is other violent crimes have
gone up. Let's try apples to apples
discussions instead of trying to "win"
with rhetorical games, eh?
\_ Rhetorical games? This sub-thread
started with someone claiming that
"other crime stats" showed that you
were "much more likely to get
robbed, raped...." That's simply
false. -tom
\_ Show us UK crime stats since WWII
on a per capita basis. Let's see
if they go up or down. And no,
this thread started with global
warming and got thread jacked way
at the top by some troll but I was
happy to play along.
\_ I'd rather get beaten up by a guy
armed with a wooden stick than shot
in the head with a bullet.
\_ Except crime stats for places with
concealed carry laws are lower
than places where firearms are
illegal. So you'd really rather
get beat by a guy with a bat or
possibly still be shot in the head
with gun, since firearms laws
won't keep him from having a gun
anyway, than be left alone by the
same guy because he doesn't know
if you'll shoot him dead if he
attacks you.
\_ If the idea behind carrying a
handgun is to deter violence,
doesn't it make more sense for
the weapon to *not* be
concealed? It seems to me that
the chances of a handgun
stopping a crime from happening
are *much* higher when the gun
is a ludicrously oversized
hand-cannon strapped to
someone's hip in plain sight,
rather than a more practical
smaller handgun tucked in the
jacket.
\_ Not really, because when
concealed, you never know
what you're facing. Every
person you might attack or
anyone else around *might*
shoot you for it. But when
everyone is required to
show what they're carrying
you know in advance what the
situation is, how many and
what type of weapons and who
has them before deciding
who, if anyone, and when
you'll attack. Concealed
carry doesn't mean everyone
is carrying. It means they
*can* if they want to. Not
everyone does.
\_ Uhhh...I wasn't saying
anything about not
allowing concealed carry.
I'm saying that if you
were, say, a female at
night in a dangerous area,
you're better off with a
.44 magnum in a hip
holster than with a
night in a dangerous
area, you're better off
with a .44 magnum in a
hip holster than with a
weapon that gets drawn
*during* a crime that
you actually end up
using.
\_ Do you have any idea how
hard it is to get a
concealed weapon permit??
\_ Depends on where you
are. There's a bunch
of really friendly
towns in Texas. In CA
yes it is basically
impossible. What does
that have to do with
concealed carry making
for safer streets or
not?
\_ It shows that your
whole argument is
moot since the only
people who can get
permits are FBI
or DEA agents.
\_ Entirely untrue.
CA is not the
entire nation.
\_ If everyone
is packing
then you will
have the Old
West: shoot
first and ask
questions
later. Likely
more
ambushes, too. |
| 4/4 |
|
| www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20332352-601,00.html The Australian -- News Science tempers fears on climate change Matthew Warren September 02, 2006 THE world's top climate scientists have cut their worst-case forecast for global warming over the next 100 years. A draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained exclusively by The Weekend Australian, offers a more certain projection of climate change than the body's forecasts five years ago. For the first time, scientists are confident enough to project a 3C rise on the average global daily temperature by the end of this century if no action is taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The Draft Fourth Assessment Report says the temperature increase could be contained to 2C by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are held at current levels. In 2001, the scientists predicted temperature rises of between 14C and 58C on current levels by 2100, but better science has led them to adjust this to a narrower band of between 2C and 45C. The new projections put paid to some of the more alarmist scenarios raised by previous modelling, which have suggested that sea levels could rise by almost 1m over the same period. The report projects a rise in sea levels by century's end of between 14cm and 43cm, with further rises expected in following centuries caused by melting polar ice. The new projections forecast damage by global warming, such as stronger cyclones, modest sea-level rises and further shrinking of the arctic sea ice. CSIRO research predicts the biggest impact of sea-level changes of this scale would be to increase the effect of storm surges, particularly on Australia's tropical northern coastline. The forecast temperature rises would also result in lower rainfall over most of the Australian mainland and exacerbate the threat to the survival of coral reefs and shellfish by increasing the risk of bleaching and increasing the acidity of the ocean. Australian Conservation Foundation energy program manager Erwin Jackson said theprojections required an urgent and immediate response from the federal Government to drive accelerated investment in low-emissions technology in Australia. "Every day we delay taking action, the problem gets worse," Mr Jackson said. "The Government keeps throwing up the costs of action but totally ignores the costs of inaction. "No one ever said that saving the planet would cost nothing - that's the bottom line." A recent Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report on the cost of cutting greenhouse gas emissions estimated Australians would incur a fall in real wages of about 20 per cent if the nation was to unilaterally cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050. John Howard this week said that sort of scenario would have an "enormously damaging" effect on the economy. "I accept that climate change is a challenge," the Prime Minister said. I am sceptical about a lot of the more gloomy predictions. "I also recognise that a country like Australia has got to balance a concern for greenhouse gas emissions with a concern for the enormous burden to be carried by consumers ... Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell said the draft IPCC report was still undergoing a thorough review process before its approval by the panel next year. "It highlights the need for an effective global response to climate change as Australia alone cannot alter the pattern of world emissions," Senator Campbell said. "We are taking a leading role internationally to achieve effective engagement by all major greenhouse gas-emitting countries." The new projections are based on the results of 23 climate models, developed by government climate scientists from IPCC member countries. According to current climate change models, stabilising global greenhouse gas levels to 400parts per million offers a good chance of avoiding 2C global temperature increases. This would require global emissions to be 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050. CSIRO recently concluded that the goal of 60 per cent reductions might be considered the minimum needed to avoid dangerous climate change. Any further reductions in global temperatures would require cuts in emissions of about 80-90 per cent in industrialised countries by 2050, which would require a faster transition to near-zero emissions technologies. The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement for developed countries to meet greenhouse gas emissions targets by 2012. Australia and the US have refused to sign the protocol, instead proposing a global climate pact that focuses on working with developing countries such as China and India to reduce their greenhouse emissions. Mr Jackson said the IPCC draft report highlighted the inadequacy of Australia's policy response to the threat of climate change. "If these projections become a reality, our children face living in an Australia with no Barrier Reef, no Kakadu wetlands and a Murray River reduced to a trickle." |